Pages

Friday, August 1, 2014

Facts, Not Opinion Should Drive Sage Grouse Conservation

By Nick Gevock

Every Montanan has a stake in what happens with Sage
Grouse. From ranchers & farmers to oil, gas and coal industry members to
hunters and anyone who loves wildlife. Everyone has a stake in ensuring that we
don’t lose an iconic species of western wildlife. That’s why a
recent editorial in the Great Falls Tribune
caught my eye.

The issue, of course, is how best to work to
conserve sage grouse. The iconic species of the sagebrush prairies has been in
decline, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering whether to put
it on the federal Endangered Species List. That’s something none of us –
conservationists, ranchers, hunters, wildlife watchers and natural resource
developers – want to see because it means we've failed to do the job at hand:
ensure a future for Sage Grouse without the heavy hand of the Federal
Government.

As it always is with wildlife, the number one factor
that will help with that is conserving key habitat that the birds depend on.
That was one of the main recommendations of the Sage Grouse Advisory Council,
which met often over eight months to craft a plan.

Apparently though, that’s not how some read the
report. For some, the key to conserving sage grouse is “predator control,”
including shooting coyotes, foxes, skunks, ravens and raccoons. And then
there’s that other predator – humans. There certainly are some people who would
rather try to lay the bird’s woes on hunting as well, and they pushed for reducing
or eliminating it. Luckily, Hunters in Montana are organized and energized and
fought the blanket closure effectively, forcing FWP to adopt a hunting season
that closes hunting opportunity where the bird is truly struggling, yet
allowing some opportunity for those of us who love chasing the big bird.

You
are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

In Wyoming, sound studies found that that just
protecting the core areas wasn’t enough. Along with all the oil and gas
development, there was a decline in sage grouse. But larger scale conservation
to add in nesting areas was shown to be more promising.

That’s why Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead proposed a $10
million conservation easement program to help protect 100,000 acres of nesting
habitat that will work hand-in-hand with federal Natural Resources Conservation
Service efforts. That’s the template that the council used in crafting a plan
for a similar sage grouse stewardship program.

Imagine that – habitat makes a difference with
wildlife conservation. It’s not complicated, and it’s certainly not something
new.

The
science has always been clear – regulated hunting is
a non-issue when it comes to upland bird populations. Yes, their numbers will
fluctuate, but with a good spring hatch upland game bird species can go from
scarcity to abundance in one year. Sage grouse aren't as fecund as some upland
species, but give them habitat and they’ll do fine.

We absolutely agree that we should focus on the
actual, peer reviewed science related to sage grouse. To date, none of that
science shows increased lethal control of any predator has long term effects on
the species. Likewise, hunting mortality is not a determining factor in sage
grouse conservation, and in fact, without hunting a significant source of
funding simply disappears, making listing even more likely.

We’re all in this together when it comes to
conservation for wildlife. We have to use the best science available, even if
it challenges our own pre-conceived notions of what is or isn’t harming sage
grouse. The US Fish & Wildlife Service has said that hunting and predation
are not limiting factors, so let’s stop demonizing people and get back to work helping
this iconic bird.